- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:54:21 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
>From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] >Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:48 AM exbox] Computed value and flex-align/flex-item-align. > >I've thought about it a bit, and I don't think there's any good reason for >'inherit' to see ''auto''. > >If your parent's flex-item-align is set to a non-auto value, using >'inherit' ensures that you're aligned the same way as they are: if they're >start-aligned in their flexbox, you'll be start-aligned; if >they're end-aligned, you'll be end-aligned. This seems potentially >useful. However, if 'auto' inherits as 'auto', this relationship breaks - >you'll now align according to your parent's 'flex-align' >property, which can be different than their actual alignment. So, 'auto' >should inherit as the alignment it corresponds to. Now, this sounds like a sensible reason to do the work. There is actually a place where it makes a difference. Note btw that you will get exactly same result by setting "flex-item-align:auto; flex-align:inherit" on the middle flexbox. But inheriting actual alignment makes sense here. I agree to the text you already have in the spec.
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 19:55:10 UTC